Doubt & Faith - Evolution, Afterlife & History

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Hi All,

This is my first post on the biologos platform.

I have been struggling with doubt in lots of areas, but really want to believe Christianity.

My main struggles have been:

  1. Reconciling a loving God with the cycles of death required in evolution.
  2. The lack of evidence for an afterlife (the fact that consciousness seems tied to brain activity)
  3. Lack of certainty about historical claims (i.e. exodus, the fall, and even the resurrection are not provable or demonstrable).

Unfortunately, all of this has been exacerbated by obsessive tendencies, and also just feeling pretty existentially fearful about it. Any ideas?

4 Likes
2

Welcome Patrick. Hopefully you can find some resources here that will help. A few comments.

For 1, the question of theodicy is certainly a thorny one. Answers tend to be book length so are difficult to address in a forum.

For 2, if you are looking for physical evidence that can examined carefully you will never find it. The Bible does present 3 possibilities.

For 3, the fall would have zero historical evidence. The exodus has limited and debated historical evidence. Neither of these are that important to understanding the Gospel message. The resurrection probably has the best historical evidence of the three. A historic Jesus is fairly well accepted by most scholars.

3 Likes
3

Not sure why the last sentence went weird like that haha:

Unfortunately, all of this has been exacerbated by obsessive tendencies, and also just feeling pretty existentially fearful about it. Any ideas?

4

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the response!

Yes I think it is that uncertainty of there never being physical, clear evidence. I struggle to live with that lack of being sure about something which so fundamental to my life.

5

To me the certainty comes from accepting what Jesus said about the after life. It doesn’t answer all of the questions but if you believe what Jesus had to say about it you know what will happen.

The weird formatting comes from a type of quote which is triggered by some text you entered. If you go back to that post and click the pencil to edit it you should be able to fix it.

6

Certainly a difficult question. I’m guessing there has to be some good resources somewhere on this website devoted to that issue. I am not sure you could basically run a whole platform attempting to show how science and faith are consistent and not address one of the most obvious questions people are going to ask. It seems “what do we do with Genesis and Adam and Eve” and “how does a loving God create via evolution” are pretty standard. If you go to the main page and click common questions there is one titled “Did Death Occur Before the Fall?” Scroll down to the subheading: “Could physical death be part of God’s original plan?” It may not answer all your questions but I think it is a start.

Jesus spoke of the afterlife and heaven. I’m a Christian. I don’t know of any “evidence” (scientific, philosophical or otherwise) that trumps the words of God in the flesh. If you love Jesus and believe he is Lord, then trusting Him on this issue should not be an issue. And looking for material evidence of an afterlife is like using a metal detector to try to find plastic buckets buried in the sand on a beach.

Why do we need certainty for historical claims? We don’t need certainty to trust any source or for it to be usable. I personally don’t have an issue with a historical fall or historical Adam and Eve in the context of modern science. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is reported as saying, “My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.” Trying to find material proof of spiritual claims is an atheists game. I’d recommend not playing.

That being said there is nothing wrong with historical apologetics and on historical grounds, there is nothing against the resurrection and everything in favor of it. In terms of historical evidence, Jesus was crucified, this was scandalous, this form of execution was meant to end movements or rebellions, many of his closest followers believe Jesus appeared to them after He died and know some of them oriented their lives–some going to death–based on this belief. We can have extremely high historical confidence in all these things. We also know his earliest followers had an extremely high Christology.

On a historical level, if it wasn’t a supernatural claim, I expect the historical evidence for the resurrection would be considered overwhelming. To say it is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence is just another way of stating you dismiss this account up front as historical and will not accept any evidence presented. Same as if someone told me Zeus mated with an animal and made a half goat-man deity. I could say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and “I lack belief in that” but what I really mean is “that view is nonsense and not how the world works.” Long story short, people don’t dismiss the resurrection on historical grounds.

Vinnie

2 Likes
7

Hey Patrick!

Across this forum, you’ll find a variety of responses to this question, and ones that are much more articulate than mine. However, I’ll still give my thoughts about it.

For me, I personally see an infinite gap between and existence and non-existence. It’s infinitely better to have existed at all, even for a brief moment in time, than to not exist at all. Over the course of our earth’s history, there have been a variety of climates that have supported varieties of life that would not be possible in the next ecological age ( i.e. generally the climate of earth’s next historical age). While not totally proven yet, I believe that creatures do exert some “free-will” or choices beyond their instincts and make choices to fit certain ecological niches. And I believe God grants them that freedom to do so. Sometimes that freedom could cause the collapse of the system (like the anaerobic age that transitioned to the Cambrian explosion).Sometimes an external cause ( like the asteroid for the dinosaurs) takes most of life out. In any case, I personally see God granting many multiples more of all possible creaturely life forms within the vast ages of evolutionary history even if it ends with their extinction. I think God’s creative output is more clearly visible within the evolutionary record. To exist for a time and die as a species to me is always better than non-existence and sometimes the cost of that proliferation of more species did come at the cost of mass extinctions. God loves all creatures in spite of their finitude. But even those mass extinctions allowed new variety of life to flourish. I’m sad that I’ll never get to see a dinosaur in real life, but I’m grateful to God that he gave those magnificent creatures a chance in the spotlight here on earth. The struggle with finitude of all creatures (or why God allows the impermanence of all creatures in the first place) is a bit more difficult but to me I have confidence in the new heavens and earth that God will provide habitats for all the past creatures.

-Liam

2 Likes
8

Welcome to the forum, @Patrick_Neill , it is good to hear your voice. My views on doubt were influenced a lot by Enns, and his Sin of Certainty book. It helped me be comfortable with doubt and uncertainty rather than feel guilty about it. I am currently reading a series of blog posts reviewing The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Risk of Commitment by Daniel Taylor, by Roger Olson. He interspersed the series with other posts, so you have to just around a bit to find them, but this link will get you to first chapter review: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2026/01/the-myth-of-certainty-chapter-1/

I would have to say that we all have some of the issues you bring up, and have integrated them into our faith in various ways, in my case by realizing that there is room for mystery and doubt, and how we interpret the bible may at times be in error. I too have some OCD tendencies, so can understand the desire that everything falls into place, but that is not how life works, sadly. Or perhaps not sadly, as if it did, we would be robots, not humans.
In respect to your questions, let me give some short trite answers (for now)
1.death and evolution. I prefer to see it as life finding a way, and ultimately, evolution depends not on death, but rather a way for life to carry on despite changing conditions and trials. So, evolution is actually a victory for life over death. Animal death is a condition of life. In Christianity, we ultimately find victory over death.
2. afterlife. Yep, I struggle with this as well. I am reminded that in the Old Testament, they had a very limited view of what and if there was an afterlife, but were called to follow God in this life. I think somewhat the same way, and in fact see afterlife as a bonus but not the reason to be Christian. We should follow Christ just the same whether there is an afterlife or not. We have had a lot of discussions about it around here, but have not solved that yet. :wink:
3. Lack of Certainty about historical claims- That too has be well discussed. I personally do not see the Bible as historical in nature primarily, so that makes it less of an issue. Again, some of Enn’s ideas have influenced be on how the Bible should be read, and its purpose for our lives.
Again, welcome, and I look forward to learning more of your life journey.

3 Likes
9

Hi Phil,

Thanks a lot for the response.

When you say that you don’t see the bible as historical primarily, where do you draw that line?

And on the afterlife, do you still feel confident about it despite your misgivings, although it is helpful to view following Christ as worthwhile regardless!

10

Thanks Liam - will read this over and see what I think! Appreciate the kind response :slight_smile:

11

Hiya Vinny,

Thanks a lot for the response.

But would you say we trust Jesus’ words even if science seems to limit the possibility of an afterlife?

Thanks :slight_smile:

12

I think you have been misinformed if you think science limits the possibility of an afterlife. It does no such thing nor can it even comment on the idea. It is well outside its purview.

I would trust Jesus over anything.That is what it means to call him Lord, Savior, God. Now that presumes I understand Him correctly of course and He says what I think He did. We Christians believe Jesus conquered death on the Cross. The afterlife is integral to Christian faith.

Vinnie

4 Likes
13

Hi Patrick, and welcome to the forum. You have a lot of good responses here, but I wanted to chime in and say I relate a lot to your questions and concerns. I grew up in a young-earth creationist environment and coming out of that has meant a lot of existential worries. I don’t have everything figured out, but I’m learning to be more content with the uncertainty.

Your struggle #1 above stands out to me because it echoes one of the main criticisms of evolution from a YEC perspective, which is that it requires death before the fall. I agree with Phil that in the grand scheme of things, it is really more about life (“Life finds a way” as in Jurassic Park). But for me this also brings up the inevitable idea that death is fundamentally wrong. I was taught growing up that death was never part of God’s plan and is completely unnatural. It was a mistake for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because they caused all of this suffering that was never supposed to be here. Now I’m less convinced of that perspective. It seems strange to act like an all-powerful God somehow didn’t foresee death, age, entropy. It seems more to me now that death is just a natural consequence of the physical world. If nothing ever died, living things would overrun the earth and I wouldn’t even be here. As a Christian, I believe that longing for a better world is natural, but it doesn’t mean that having finite lifespans here is some kind of accident.

This is where I think a lot of YEC (and other apologetics perspectives) get it backwards, where some of their teachings essentially boil down to this idea that you need the Bible (or a very specific interpretation of Genesis) in order for any belief in Jesus to be valid. It puts the cart before the horse, and makes Jesus into the result of something else rather than the first cause. Not to say the Bible isn’t important, but I like to highlight what Jesus said [edit for accuracy: John, not Jesus] in John 20:31:

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

We have the Bible so that we can believe in Jesus and have life in him. We don’t have Jesus so that we can finally get the Bible “right.”

Anyway, that is just my two cents so take it for what it’s worth (although now that the US is getting rid of pennies maybe we should up it to five cents! :smiley: ). I wish you the best in your journey!

11 Likes
14

Exactly. The historical method follows methodological naturalism, which means that no supernatural event can be affirmed as true—regardless of the evidence. Even if Nero himself had left a written testimony claiming that the risen Jesus appeared to him and then he became a Christian martyr, historians still wouldn’t be able to conclude, “Yes, He truly rose from the dead.”
Why? Because methodological naturalism is treated as an untouchable dogma—it restricts historical conclusions to natural explanations only, no matter what the evidence might suggest.

If the historical method weren’t bound by methodological naturalism, the evidence for the resurrection would definitely be considered overwhelming. In fact, even under a modestly agnostic framework—one that neither affirms nor denies the existence of God or His ability to act in history but considers it a real possibility, not to be ruled out—the resurrection still stands out as, by far, the most reasonable explanation for what happened after the crucifixion.

2 Likes
15

Methodological naturalism is just the rule used so results can be verified by anyone. Philosophical naturalism says there are no supernatural events. You can accept methodological without accepting philosophical.

3 Likes
16

Hello Patrick,
Regarding this issue, I think this article from BioLogos provides a very solid overview:
:backhand_index_pointing_right: Did Death Occur Before the Fall?

That said, I also have a more personal theory on the subject—one that involves the sin of the angels. I’ve long suspected that the fall of Satan and the angels who followed him had profound consequences for creation itself. But again, this is just a personal reflection, not a formal doctrine.

Actually, in recent years there have been several works that are far more open to spiritualist conclusions than in the past. Two books I would immediately recommend are Irreducible Mind Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century : Kelly, Edward F., Kelly, Emily Williams, Crabtree, Adam, Gauld, Alan, Grosso, Michael: Amazon.it: Books and The Spiritual Brain. The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul : Beauregard, Mario, O'Leary, Denyse: Amazon.it: Books

I’d also suggest this: Amazon.com

Reading these books, you’ll find that the supposed “evidence” for consciousness being entirely produced by the brain is far less conclusive than often claimed. In fact, there’s a growing body of evidence pointing in a very different direction. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that these works are written by scientists and neurologists—not by theologians or philosophers with an agenda.

As for the Resurrection of Jesus, I wrote about this just yesterday Primary and Secondary Causes, God through (not vs) Nature, and Gaps are scraps. (Aristotle and Aquinas and Cosmological arguments) - #209 by 1Cor15.54 , but to summarize: the behavior of the disciples is completely inconsistent if you compare how they acted at the time of the crucifixion with what they did afterward, and that’s because something happened — something powerful enough to radically transform them. And the overwhelming majority of scholars—regardless of belief—agree that the disciples had powerful experiences that truly convinced them Jesus had truly risen from the dead. Also the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 is extremely early, and there’s no serious doubt that it traces directly back to apostolic eyewitnesses. The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar

Now, historians can’t formally conclude that “Jesus rose from the dead,” because the academic method is constrained by methodological naturalism, like I said before, which excludes any supernatural explanation by default. But once you set aside the methodological barrier that rules out the supernatural by default, the evidence for the Resurrection becomes remarkably compelling. It still requires a leap of faith, yes—but there are very strong reasons to make that leap.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more faith to believe that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead than to believe that He did—because what happened after the crucifixion demands far too many ad hoc explanations to make sense within a purely naturalistic framework. It leaves far too many unresolved questions and historical dead ends. The sheer transformation of the disciples, the rapid emergence of resurrection belief, and the explosive growth of the early Church all point to something extraordinary—something that natural causes alone fail to fully account for.

Edit: I’ve updated this post after realizing I had accidentally repeated two paragraphs.

2 Likes
17

No doubt — that’s exactly what scholars like John P. Meier (and many, many others) have done, for instance. And honestly, it’s not like historians have much of a choice. If one were to write in an academic publication that Jesus actually rose from the dead, he’d probably stop being considered a historian the very next day. :joy:

But yes, what you said is absolutely right — many historians accept methodological naturalism without necessarily subscribing to the philosophical (what makes the Third Quest particularly interesting is that its scholars—regardless of their philosophical or religious background—have often reached remarkably similar conclusions). I only made that point to emphasize that, due to the rules of the discipline, historians wouldn’t declare the Resurrection to be a historical fact even if Jesus had appeared before the entire Roman Senate.

2 Likes
18

Additionally, ‘Don’t know how’ is perfectly acceptable in science.

2 Likes
19

Hello Patrick, Religion is always a tough topic, it does have to do Our Belief. Beliefs can be a motivator and a control of Our behavior. We want to be free willed especially as a teenager We like to get away from all the constraints of Our Parents but Without constraints any behavior goes. To Me Christianity means to be Born Again as a Child of Our Loving Father as Jesus. I never want to do accepted Adult Behaviors that as parents We don’t want Our children to do. Examples are no gambling, no drinking, no cursing, etc. I now am a Child of Our Father and Father my parent doesn’t want me to do accepted Adult Behaviors. Some may say My Life is Boring but I Believe I am behaving as I am already in Our Father’s Loving Kingdom. Of course I also am a inadvertent Sinner for some things I do are a mistake or I am forced to do as the Scourgers of Jesus and He Forgave Them. As for after life, I am a Spirit which is to Me a form of Energy and it can be transferred (like Heat Energy) when the created body I live in expires.

20

I saw a quote last night from Dallas Willard that I am going to paraphrase since I think it was relevant.

It’s okay to doubt your beliefs, just make sure you also doubt your doubts.

Vinnie

5 Likes